Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[RAvirani]

33 minutes ago, imex99 said:

Is this just speculation or what?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

No. If Softbank attempts to acquire more than 84% equity in Sprint a tender offer is triggered (this means they must buy the remainder of Sprint stock). 

[IrwinshereAgain]

5 minutes ago, imex99 said:

Is this just speculation or what?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

As part of the Softbank purchase of Sprint, they were restricted to the max percentage of Stock they could own.  If they went over that limit, they are required to buy up all of the remaining stock.  I can try to find a reference if someone else does not post it first.

[lilotimz]

1 hour ago, Tengen31 said:

Att

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
 

Found it!

3GPP 14.3

[RedSpark]

11 hours ago, IrwinshereAgain said:

As part of the Softbank purchase of Sprint, they were restricted to the max percentage of Stock they could own.  If they went over that limit, they are required to buy up all of the remaining stock.  I can try to find a reference if someone else does not post it first.

See this: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1560158/000119312513192860/d425100d424b3.htm

Mandatory Offer to Purchase. The New Sprint certificate of incorporation as in effect at the effective time of the SoftBank Merger will provide that, in the event that the combined voting interest of SoftBank and its controlled affiliates in New Sprint exceeds 85% of the outstanding voting securities of New Sprint, then SoftBank or a controlled affiliate will make an offer to acquire all the remaining shares of New Sprint common stock at a price not less than the volume-weighted average closing price of New Sprint common stock for the 20 consecutive trading days immediately preceding such offer.

(Page 18)

[Mr.Nuke]

16 hours ago, IrwinshereAgain said:

As I understand it, if Softbank wanted to put an extra 5 Billion Dollars in Sprint, they would also have to buy up the remaining shares of Sprint stock they did not already own. 

I believe your understanding is incorrect.

16 hours ago, IrwinshereAgain said:

As part of the Softbank purchase of Sprint, they were restricted to the max percentage of Stock they could own.  If they went over that limit, they are required to buy up all of the remaining stock.  I can try to find a reference if someone else does not post it first.

Correct and it is 85%. If Softbank exceeds 85% ownership in Sprint a tender offer for the remaining 15% of the company is triggered. But what does this have to do with Softbank injecting money into Sprint?

 

Softbank's initial acquisition of 70% Sprint was a $20.1 billion deal. $8 billion of that was a one time capital contribution to Sprint, the remaining $12.1 billion went to acquire 70% of the shares of Sprint. That $12.1 billion didn't go to Sprint at all, it went to institutional and individual shareholders. The $8 billion in capital isn't typical outside of an initial acquisition either...

 

Subsequently they've raised their stake to somewhere in the 84% range. All of these subsequent transactions to increase their ownership stake have occurred on the open market as far as I know. Equity capital for the offering corporation only typically occurs once at the time of the initial offering i.e. Sprint went public offered stock on the market and got a one time payment at the time of the initial public offering. Any subsequent transactions on the stock market at that point are between the shareholder selling and the new potential shareholder wanting to buy. Softbank in and of itself buying 70% and now 84% of the company gave no money to Sprint. It went directly to the shareholder they bought it from.

 

The "issue" that has apparently limited Softbank's ability to invest in Sprint is in the debt they took out to finance the deal, their Japanese banks included debt covenants restricting Softbank from infusing Sprint with any more capital than the initial $8 billion in the deal to acquire the majority of the company. https://www.wsj.com/articles/doubts-grow-about-whether-softbank-can-save-sprint-1439346616

 

Without actually seeing the covenants it is hard to know how restrictive they actually are and how much if it is simply unwillingness.  Softbank has shown some creativity in the past in getting money to Sprint when they absolutely needed it. But again just to reiterate, the 85% ownership ceiling is a completely separate thing from investing money into the subsidiary.

[greenbastard]

19 hours ago, lilotimz said:

I mean for a lot of urban areas it's still not going to be available til 2020-2021. Time sure did fly by though. We're past the halfway point of 2019 already!!!  

Interestingly enough, T-Mobile has started to add B71 to a lot of towers around the Houston Metro area. I'm assuming a lot of their towers will have to be remodeled since the B71/B12 panels are beafy (4x4 MIMO). Most of their towers already have 4x4 PCS/AWS split sectors, so space and weight are probably an issue.

Meanwhile, Sprint continues to disappoint me. Their towers are not spaced for the 2.5 GHz band around here. The massive MIMO panels didn't do much to improve their 2.5 GHz coverage. The network is still a Swiss cheese style network where speeds go from 100+ Mbps in one block to <1 Mbps in the next. If they aren't going to densify, then they need to split sectors and add 4x4 MIMO. The original NV radios and antennas are outdated by today's standards.

[lilotimz]

4 hours ago, greenbastard said:

Interestingly enough, T-Mobile has started to add B71 to a lot of towers around the Houston Metro area. I'm assuming a lot of their towers will have to be remodeled since the B71/B12 panels are beafy (4x4 MIMO). Most of their towers already have 4x4 PCS/AWS split sectors, so space and weight are probably an issue.

Meanwhile, Sprint continues to disappoint me. Their towers are not spaced for the 2.5 GHz band around here. The massive MIMO panels didn't do much to improve their 2.5 GHz coverage. The network is still a Swiss cheese style network where speeds go from 100+ Mbps in one block to <1 Mbps in the next. If they aren't going to densify, then they need to split sectors and add 4x4 MIMO. The original NV radios and antennas are outdated by today's standards.

In terms of radios, Ericsson actually has the most modern radios for 1.9 as the NV RRUS11s were ripped out literally right after they were installed. Penalties for doing a shit job in NV.... It's the same generation as the RRUS32s the other three are still deploying to this day which are very good designs.

 

Antenna wise you do have a point. I've seen ATT and VZW swap out their antennas for newer high gain and performance ones thrice already (LTE B12/13 --> B2/4 --> B5/14/29/66/71 etc) At the bright side they're being very proactive in many regions and going back and changing them to brand new RFS / KMW / etc 8 port antennas that add 4T4R 800 MHz capability while increasing 1.9 coverage patterns / range. My home Clear NV site 800/1.9 antenna was turned on a few days ago and I've been very impressed at its coverage pattern at a 40' elevation. Newer antennas can make a lot of difference! (10-20% perf improvements in same cases)

 

Edit: I've seen pics of those new T-mobile low band antennas. They're the same octoport low band model series from RFS that Sprint is now using. 

[RAvirani]

On 7/1/2019 at 2:24 PM, lilotimz said:

At the bright side they're being very proactive in many regions and going back and changing them to brand new RFS / KMW / etc 8 port antennas that add 4T4R 800 MHz capability while increasing 1.9 coverage patterns / range. My home Clear NV site 800/1.9 antenna was turned on a few days ago and I've been very impressed at its coverage pattern at a 40' elevation. Newer antennas can make a lot of difference! (10-20% perf improvements in same cases)

How do the Sprint Commscope/RFS antennas compare performance-wise to the new antennas the big two (namely Verizon) are deploying? Verizon towers 'feel' a lot more powerful when it comes to lowband coverage and propagation in my market, although I haven't been impressed with their midband performance. 

On 7/1/2019 at 2:24 PM, lilotimz said:

I've seen pics of those new T-mobile low band antennas. They're the same octoport low band model from RFS that Sprint is now using. 

How is T-Mobile deploying 4x4 600 alongside 700 on the same antennas? I though the antennas had four lowband ports and four midband ports? Are the 600 and 700 transmit paths shared? Or are they using RF combiners?

[lilotimz]

1- should be at least on par with the more common rfs/ commscope ones they use. I'm not too sure about the JMA ones though. Supposedly they're ridiculously good which is why Verizon has been replacing older sets with those non stop.

2. Woops typo. I should've said same antenna model series. Its 8 low band ports.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[RAvirani]

27 minutes ago, lilotimz said:

1- should be at least on par with the more common rfs/ commscope ones they use. I'm not too sure about the JMA ones though. Supposedly they're ridiculously good which is why Verizon has been replacing older sets with those non stop.

That's what I've heard and experienced.  Band 13 goes for miles from those setups.  Do you recall which exact JMA models they are deploying?  I'd like to take a look at their spec sheets.

27 minutes ago, lilotimz said:

2. Woops typo. I should've said same antenna model series. Its 8 low band ports.

That's what I thought.  Thanks for the clarification.  

[Brad The Beast]

Does anyone know why Sprint blocks Remote Desktop connection? Works fine over Airport Wi-Fi, home Wi-Fi and Verizon LTE. It’s very quickly getting on my nerves. 

[nexgencpu]

16 minutes ago, Brad The Beast said:

Does anyone know why Sprint blocks Remote Desktop connection? Works fine over Airport Wi-Fi, home Wi-Fi and Verizon LTE. It’s very quickly getting on my nerves. 

Ive never had that issue..

[Brad The Beast]

3 minutes ago, nexgencpu said:

Ive never had that issue..

Hmm. Mine flat out doesn’t work. Now if I have my phone on LTE and I connect my iPad to it through hotspot, then it works. Other wise if I try from my phone or from my iPad on their own it doesn’t work.

[nexgencpu]

2 minutes ago, Brad The Beast said:

Hmm. Mine flat out doesn’t work. Now if I have my phone on LTE and I connect my iPad to it through hotspot, then it works. Other wise if I try from my phone or from my iPad on their own it doesn’t work.

Try turning off your firewall on your desktop for testing.

[RAvirani]

1 hour ago, Brad The Beast said:

Hmm. Mine flat out doesn’t work. Now if I have my phone on LTE and I connect my iPad to it through hotspot, then it works. Other wise if I try from my phone or from my iPad on their own it doesn’t work.

Just initiated a RDP session from my iPhone on Sprint LTE here in Las Vegas with no issues. There's something wrong with your setup. 

[ingenium]

Does anyone know why Sprint blocks Remote Desktop connection? Works fine over Airport Wi-Fi, home Wi-Fi and Verizon LTE. It’s very quickly getting on my nerves. 

As a side note, you should never have an RDP server exposed to the internet. You will eventually get bitten in the ass. It should always be behind a VPN as an extra layer of security.  

 

 

Regarding your actual issue, one possibility is that your RDP server is listening on IPv4 only, but the hostname you're using for RDP has both A and AAAA DNS records. Tethering does not assign IPv6 addresses to clients.

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RedSpark]

Happy 4th everyone! 🇺🇸💥🍺

Hoping Sprint’s network does well on the National Mall for the 4th of July crowds in DC. I didn’t see any announcements about COWs. Perhaps Massive MIMO is covering the Mall better now?

[Brad The Beast]

On 7/2/2019 at 5:00 PM, RAvirani said:

Just initiated a RDP session from my iPhone on Sprint LTE here in Las Vegas with no issues. There's something wrong with your setup. 

It doesn’t work across two different VPN’s. One in ND, another in CA. Works fine on Verizon. I don’t think it’s me but it could be.

[Brad The Beast]

On 7/3/2019 at 11:10 PM, ingenium said:

As a side note, you should never have an RDP server exposed to the internet. You will eventually get bitten in the ass. It should always be behind a VPN as an extra layer of security.  

 

 

Regarding your actual issue, one possibility is that your RDP server is listening on IPv4 only, but the hostname you're using for RDP has both A and AAAA DNS records. Tethering does not assign IPv6 addresses to clients.

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t. I have to connect to a VPN. I have two different machines in two different states on two different VPNs that both don’t work. They work fine on Verizon but I don’t know why they don’t work on Sprint unless I connect to hotspot. 

[ingenium]

I don’t. I have to connect to a VPN. I have two different machines in two different states on two different VPNs that both don’t work. They work fine on Verizon but I don’t know why they don’t work on Sprint unless I connect to hotspot. 

Do other things work on the VPN? If not, then it sounds like a VPN issue. Sprint has weird, variable MTU on LTE (I've seen it drop under 1000 before for 15+ seconds before going back up to 1300 range). But it jumps all over the place every few seconds. Really messes with VPNs in my experience, causing fragmentation. That could be partially at fault, but it would also apply to tethered data...

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Brad The Beast]

Visiting my mom because her DSL box got struck by lightning and exploded. Her neighborhood is the cell edge for everyone. However I have noticed that Sprint’s 5x5 b26 is performing better than Verizon’s 10x10 b5. My phone doesn’t seem to want to connect to band 13 though.

Edit: It is actually bouncing between 5 and 13. Sprint still performs better though. 

[Brad The Beast]

3 minutes ago, ingenium said:

Do other things work on the VPN? If not, then it sounds like a VPN issue. Sprint has weird, variable MTU on LTE (I've seen it drop under 1000 before for 15+ seconds before going back up to 1300 range). But it jumps all over the place every few seconds. Really messes with VPNs in my experience, causing fragmentation. That could be partially at fault, but it would also apply to tethered data...

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

Yeah. SSH works fine.

[ingenium]

Yeah. SSH works fine.

SSH doesn't fill packets typically and won't exceed the MTU typically. I had the same issue until I clamped the MTU on the VPN to under 1000. Try transferring a large-ish file via SSH/SCP and see if it hangs or works. If it doesn't, use mssfix or the equivalent to keep the MTU at under 1000 and try again. I'm pretty sure this is your issue.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Brad The Beast]

Just now, ingenium said:

SSH doesn't fill packets typically and won't exceed the MTU typically. I had the same issue until I clamped the MTU on the VPN to under 1000. Try transferring a large-ish file via SSH/SCP and see if it hangs or works. If it doesn't, use mssfix or the equivalent to keep the MTU at under 1000 and try again. I'm pretty sure this is your issue.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

I will also note that VNC works fine as well. 

[ingenium]

I will also note that VNC works fine as well. 

Hmm, well in that case I'm going to say it's something with your VPN or firewall rules. If the VPN connects and works, then the traffic is agnostic on Sprint's end. It all looks the same to them, VNC, RDP, SSH, etc. If some services work over it but not others, and you've ruled out the MTU / fragmentation issue, then it's not a Sprint problem, it's something with your config.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk